Interesting Comments re: ESPN possibly shifting focus from 3D to VOD?

[SirFozzie]

Sounds like at least one of the big players isn't so sure that the next big thing for broadcasters is not going to be 3D, but VoD (especially for event based prograrmming.

I think what we're seeing with ESPN3, etcetera is a move away from the traditional network-based programming and instead to package-based combined VoD/Live services. I think within a decade, most of the networks you see on your cable/sattelite package will be switched over to VoD-primary carriers. Probably they'll still run general programming, but the big selling points will be VoD.''

question-marks-over-espn-s-3d-future from tvbeurope.com - StumbleUpon

“We committed to a full year of trial of ESPN 3D and we’re preparing for a second year, but whether this is something we repeat or continue or cut is something that at this point we have very little indication on one way or another,” ESPN Senior Director of Technology, Jonathan Pannaman (pictured), told the Sports Broadcast Europe conference.

“We’re still not sure what makes sense for 3DTV and we don’t yet see a proven ROI,” Pannaman said. “At the same time the buzz is huge and we are hopeful of a huge push by the consumer electronics association ahead of Christmas to market 3DTV sets and services, and we’re seeing more stereo 3D movies and 3D Blu-ray discs come to market.

“Regardless of whether we continue as an event-based network or go to a 24/7 network switch to VoD, we definately have to make production efficiencies to make it work. We’ve also got to get more eyeballs looking at 3D to get some idea of acceptance in the marketplace.”

[Ksyrup]

Has anyone watched a 3D TV? Is it as useless as it sounds? I'll be happy to keep upgrading all of my TVs to HD but I haven't for one second thought about 3D.

I know I'm in the minority, but I could care less about VoD for sports. If I can't watch it live, I just read about it online and maybe catch the highlights on ESPNews. I have absolutely no interest (or time) to watch a "live" event on tape-delay.

[Kodos]

Virtually all of my sports-watching is done via my DVR, so I can avoid commercials.

[Logan]

I haven't watched sports in 3D, but I don't think it really matters for me...I'll never be able to get past the glasses-wearing part of it. I think of what I was doing yesterday, like I do every Sunday: flip between the games that are on, follow my fantasy teams on my laptop, text/BBM my brothers about games, try to pay just enough attention to the girl to keep her happy, Can't imagine doing any of that while wearing glasses.

[cougarfreak]

I had surgery on my eyes so I DIDN'T have to wear glasses, I'm not putting them back on to watch TV.

[Celeval]

Way behind the curve tech-wise on television; I've got no interest in 3D.

VoD is ok, live VoD draws a lot of my attention.

[Ksyrup]

I don't understand the concept/meaning of "live" VoD. Isn't that an oxymoron?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't understand the concept/meaning of "live" VoD. Isn't that an oxymoron?

See: ESPN3. I think it means there is no channel. There are live events, and you can watch them on demand -- but they are not on a "channel."

[Passacaglia]

Isn't VoD basically pointless for those who have DVRs? If so, how can this really be the next "big" thing?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Isn't VoD basically pointless for those who have DVRs? If so, how can this really be the next "big" thing?

I know I virtually never get any of the games that I want to see due to living geographically in a different part of the country from where I grew up. So DVR does me no good if those games never are aired here.

Now I could picture a system where you could basically subscribe to the game you want to see and watch it on demand and not be locked into the local broadcasting, and that appeals to me greatly.

I don't know if that is what they are talking about with their future VoD though, but that is something that I would love.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Isn't VoD basically pointless for those who have DVRs? If so, how can this really be the next "big" thing?

Again, I don't think this is about DVR's. I think it's games that are not shown on a "channel."

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Again, I don't think this is about DVR's. I think it's games that are not shown on a "channel."

The same as most cable and satellite companies have now, with movies? I don't really see the appeal. If Alan's right, and we're talking about any game from any area, then I can see some general appeal, though.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

The same as most cable and satellite companies have now, with movies? I don't really see the appeal. If Alan's right, and we're talking about any game from any area, then I can see some general appeal, though.

Again, see: ESPN3. Have you ever used it? It has tons of live games available, and, in addition, games that already happened. So you have an option to see a live game that is not being broadcast elsewhere, or said game after it has been completed.

This is all speculation based on the name, though. I don't know if this is actually what they mean.

[RainMaker]

I have seen the 3D TVs and told people for awhile that it's the dumbest thing ever pushed by the electronics industry. You need a real big TV to make it worthwhile (at least 50 inches), the glasses are annoying for casual TV watchers, it hurts your eyes after awhile, and it's really not that special to watch on.

I honestly don't see this ever catching on and going mainstream. When it comes to watching sports, a lot of us watch casually outside of big games or our favorite teams. I like flipping through channels on Saturday, doing some stuff around the house, and other stuff. I don't want to sit with a pair of these glasses on all day. I'm not going to be that focused.

[lordscarlet]

There are companies working on glasses free versions. If those are able to work, and work well, 3D TV may have a chance. Otherwise it will be very niche.

[RainMaker]

It's still not a good experience. Maybe I'm different, but TV is often casual viewing for me most of the time. You can't do that with a 3D TV. You have to be focused.

[stevew]

In home real3D(like Avatar) projection is a good idea. 3D TV which operates more like Imax with expensive glasses is a bad idea.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Again, see: ESPN3. Have you ever used it? It has tons of live games available, and, in addition, games that already happened. So you have an option to see a live game that is not being broadcast elsewhere, or said game after it has been completed.

This is all speculation based on the name, though. I don't know if this is actually what they mean.

I haven't used it, but I've heard of it. So you're saying you think this will be ESPN3 but through the TV instead of the computer?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Sounds like at least one of the big players isn't so sure that the next big thing for broadcasters is not going to be 3D, but VoD (especially for event based prograrmming.

I think you're misreading his comment. It's not a debate about whether the next big thing is 3D or VoD, but rather whether 3D programming is worthy of its own network or belongs on solely on VoD. Turner Sports has done quite a bit of VoD 3D programming so far. ESPN is keeping the door open to going to VoD.

I don't see how in the short-term 3D can support a 24/7 channel. We're years away from 3D being an economical investment -- or even longer if you're a pessimist like me and believe that the current 3D technology is simply not viable.

Outside 3D, ESPN is starting to beef up its VoD offerings. They will focus on their documentaries, classic sports and events such as X Games and whatnot where they can put hours of programming without taking up linear channel space.

Frankly, I think VoD will eventually allow ESPN Classic to cease to exist. There are more profitable uses for the channel space, like a 24/7 NFL or football channel.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

See: ESPN3. I think it means there is no channel. There are live events, and you can watch them on demand -- but they are not on a "channel."

OK, it's the video part that's confusing. Makes it sound like something that is pre-recorded and sitting on a shelf waiting to be watched, not a live event. I get it.

[lordscarlet]

Again, it's just speculation on my part. But that's what I picture for ESPN doing "Video on Demand."

[DanGarion]

3D is overrated crap.

Crap that caused headaches and my eyes to water.